Andrea Risk

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to restrain a harassment investigation, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling over $38,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on proportionality and reasonableness.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Queen's University and Cunningham, and $10,000 for Anand, balancing the plaintiffs' chaotic conduct of the motion with principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs, a university student and a community member, brought an urgent motion seeking to stay or enjoin an ongoing harassment investigation by Queen's University and its independent investigator.

They also sought a mandatory order requiring the University to investigate a separate discrimination complaint.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the investigator's independence was not compromised, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative process, and no mandatory duty to investigate the discrimination complaint had been triggered.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a Postgraduate Tribunal decision that dismissed her appeal of an Academic Review Board order requiring her to withdraw from the program.

She alleged procedural unfairness based on a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding one panel member and inadequate disclosure of redacted patient records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, agreeing with the Tribunal that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that sufficient disclosure had been provided.

The defendant Archdiocese moved to strike two paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and similar facts regarding the abuser's conduct toward another victim.

The court found that pleading the history of charges and convictions was not pleading evidence, but rather material facts relevant to the institutional defendant's alleged failure to prevent abuse.

The court also held that pleading similar facts did not add undue complexity.

The motion was dismissed, save for a few words in one paragraph that improperly pleaded argument.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The defendant opposed, arguing that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the contextual analysis of just cause for dismissal, the plaintiff's state of mind regarding the disclosure of confidential information to her lawyer, and the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient for a fair and just determination on the merits and that a full trial was necessary to resolve the complex factual and legal issues, including the employer's broader grounds for termination beyond those initially stated.

The appellant, an ordained Roman Catholic priest, brought an action for constructive dismissal after being removed from his office as pastor by the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese successfully moved to stay the action on the basis that the dispute was ecclesiastical in nature and governed by canon law.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in making factual findings on a jurisdiction motion and in finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the core of the dispute was ecclesiastical and the appellant was required to seek redress through the internal review process provided by canon law, which met the requirements of natural justice.